Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Where Are All The Socialists? Here, There and Everywhere
A recent column by Greg Kesich asked where the socialists are ("Looking for socialists in all the wrong places," Oct. 29).
During the recent election, the specter of socialism in its creeping form was raised in numerous op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and accusations that Barack Obama was a "socialist." It is interesting that rarely has the press bothered to ask a socialist if the United States is really on the verge of a socialist revolution.
Being a card-carrying socialist -- yes, I pay dues to the Democratic Socialists of America -- I'd like to respond to the question of where the socialists are.
Socialism shares one thing in common with religion; there are many denominations and sects and they all claim to hold some higher truth. I don't claim to hold a higher truth. I do have a perspective on socialism, and that is, of course, open to disagreement.
Not all socialists are Marxists or atheists. Norman Thomas, the leader of the party in the 1930s and '40s, was an ordained Presbyterian minister.
Socialists do not believe nationalization of an industry, government buying stocks in banks or the subsides to auto makers makes the country socialist.
Socialism is about social ownership. That can take many forms, such as employee-owned co-ops. It also does mean an end to privately owned business. But, socialists would want to democratize large corporations with real worker and consumer representation.
The Socialist Party of Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas achieved high points respectively in 1912 and 1932, although the socialist-backed Robert Lafollette Sr., running on the Progressive ticket managed to net 17 percent of the popular vote.
After the 1956 campaign, the Socialist Party suspended its third-party presidential campaigns. Asking the movement's natural constituencies of labor, minorities and liberals to abandon the Democratic Party was proving fruitless.
In the 1960s, the Socialist Party adapted a strategy of working within the Democratic Party alongside its allies on the left to strengthen the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in the hopes that a new more left-wing party could be formed.
Not all socialists agreed with this strategy, and today a reconstituted Socialist Party fielded Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander for president and vice president respectively. The International Socialists is another group that works outside the two-party system.
The largest socialist organization in the United States and one of the heirs of the socialist party of Eugene V. Debs is The Democratic Socialists of America, which is affiliated with the Socialist International along with the Canadian New Democratic Party.
The DSA is not a political party. It functions as sort of an American Fabian Society, attempting to bring socialist ideas into mainstream political debate and to help build anti-corporate social movements. Many of its members have worked in campaigns for Democrats.
But the DSA does not confine itself only to Democratic races. Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a registered independent, enjoyed wide support from the DSA.
The DSA has 25 chapters across the country. It has around 10,000 dues-paying members, not large by most standards but more than enough to fill a coffee house.
One of its founders was the late Michael Harrington, who was well known for his book "The Other America," which is said to have sparked the War on Poverty in the '60s, a war, by the way, that was lost on the battlefields of Vietnam.
Among the more well-known members of the DSA is Barbara Ehrenreich, whose book, "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America," was partly researched in Maine where she worked in a cleaning service.
Other members include Cornel West, Francis Fox Piven and Dolores Huerta.
There are of course many people who consider themselves socialist and do not belong to any "official" socialist organization.
They may be found working in various unions, civil rights organizations and feminist and other progressive groups.
Many socialists are pleased that Barack Obama has been elected president.
Obama is not a socialist. But his election opens up the possibility of a new dialogue about where the United States is headed and how we can achieve the aims of a decent, more humane society.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
49 Comments so far
Show AllDuring the recent election, the specter of socialism in its creeping form was raised in numerous op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and accusations that Barack Obama was a "socialist." It is interesting that rarely has the press bothered to ask a socialist if the United States is really on the verge of a socialist revolution.
The head of the American Socialist Party was a guest on The Colbert Report and that's the only time I've ever seen him anywhere.
In the 1990s, forget the exact year, the head of the American Socialist Party was interviewed on PBS's MacNeil-Lehrer Report by MacNeil.
There was outrage from the Republican party, Newt Gingrich in particular. They attacked PBS, threatening to remove all government funding from PBS.
Soon there after MacNeil departed and The News Hour with only Lehrer took its place.
The story of MacNeil never got any media attention.
phasor:also got a Republican administration which made changes (not for the better) in the top folks running NPR. I dislike NPR (I am a Pacifica person, particularly WBAI 99.5FM NYC www.wbai.org). FAIR www.fair.org Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting did studies of guests on The News Hour, in particular, the number of men, women and people of minority groups. You raise an interesting issue.
Which reminds me, did you ever hear the piece of interview that Amy Goodman, of DemocracyNow www.democracynow.org, did (and it may have been before DemocracyNow began, which is 10 or 11 years old as a show)? She was at a Newt Gingrich press conference when he was in the House, so that's how long ago it was, and she asked him if his mother really called Hillary Clinton a bitch? It was a funny sound clip that was played on WBAI quite a bit. She was head of the news department there, before DemocracyNow.
What a great article. "Naming names",chuckle is good,too. I am at heart, a socialist. So was my Orthodox Jewish grandmother, who had started as an entrepreneur on the Lower East Side, NYC just before WWI, a widow with 5kids using her own baked bread for sale on a pushcart below the apartment with the preschool kids upstairs. She later had a small grocery store,always gave away all her money. Like my grandmother, I have always voted Democrats. And feel, off and on, despair that we can't get the Dems further to the Left. I point out that my political education, classroom knowledge in college, has been learned via living. I have moved to the Left as I grew older, now a senior citizen. Becoming ill and disabled, turned me into a proverbial "political junkie" as I became less physically active. Another thing I like about the article: not ideological jargon.
Your grandparents' story sounds very much like mine. It was a pleasure to read your comment and I wish you the best.
Mordechai Shiblikov:thank you. Sometimes I like your comments (besides the compliment,chuckle) and other times, I want to yell at you. (No, I don't remember the specifics at the moment.)
I would say that Mordechai is extreme and you're not at all. But usually, Mordechai is extremely funny, so another person with 'controlled' extremist tendencies (myself) loves Mordechai's clever, biting humour.
But I think you both contribute a lot to this site with your sparse comments that are always on topic, as opposed to a lot of us who tend to rant too much...and I'm one of the worst.
getreal:I don't think you rant too much, although I do recall having gotten really annoyed at some things you've said (but I don't recall what)and liked some comments. I tend to remember certain people.
NYCartist
I'll bet you feel that way about most of us. And we deserve it I'm sure.
Thomas More:Nope. You are in a more gentle category. I don't know how to put that better. I'm not even talking about the folks who I think are nasty. I was surprised at one of your comments above, below the one where I asked you to expand your comment (I suppose I should read from the bottom up on the page?), at how you are so convinced some things are so radical, and so "never". Do you fluctuate between thinking we shall do better as a society and at other times think, Oh, it's all falling apart? I go back and forth.
Nope....I just used "never" which I should NEVER do! And its hard to write in degrees of opinion.
I am always of the opinion that we will do better, we always do.....I never think we are falling apart, just mislead by the most Corrupt adnministration and the most traitorous bunch of business executives we've ever had. They would seel our country and the American workers for another dollar. America will come back to what she should be and what she has been before. My belief.
The DSA hyped above has always a perspective of working within the Democratic Party, to reform the Democratic Party. Reform of the Democratic is impossible as it is totally controlled by corporate and capitalist interests. This is revealed yet again with Obama's selection of war mongers and gangster capitalists to make a "seamless transition" to a "new" administration. Capitalism cannot be reformed any more than the Democratic Party.
To end wars in the Middle East, wants to stop global warming, end the increasing poverty, save the public education system, establish a national health system, etc. capitalism must end.
A transition to socialism is now essential for the survival of humanity.
A "must read" for understanding a socialist perspective is the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS):
http://www.wsws.org
The WSWS has been on-line for over 10 years, six days a week, providing a internationalist and socialist understanding of U.S. and global capitalism. The WSWS is published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)
The Socialist Equality Party
http://www.socialequality.com
is now established in several countries, including the U.S., by the ICFI.
"The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality Party" is now available on-line and printed form.
"The Socialist Equality Party Statement of Principles" founding document are available free in PDF format:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/prin-s26.pdf
Every capitalist is a socialist.
If you support the existence of roads and plumbing infrastructure, then you are a socialist. Every business uses it, and I doubt many capitalists will propose making their own roads and finding their own plumbing systems.
The above comment reflects excessive black and white thinking I believe. Our current system is a *mix* of capitalism and socialism. The debate is a matter of in which direction that mix may move to.
The biggest problem facing Socialists today is the word socialist, which has been permanently branded in America as "evil," "anti-American," etc. And, as we all know, in this country, once you're branded as "bad," it's nearly impossible to change minds.
Hence, Socialists need to re-brand themselves if they ever hope to see their vision gain real traction in the US.
There is a big difference between Socialists and Democrats. Most dems I know support capitalism and war. Most socialists that I know, do not.
You better check Bernie's voting record. I know him and like him but he is not much of a socialist any more.
Brian Moore, the Socialist candidate for president was on the Colbert Report.
Nader is much more of a socialist than any democrat I know. Maybe that's why the media silences him.
Most socialists are democratic. Most democrats are not socialistic.
Yes, I do have one of those little red cards to carry in my wallet.
Yes, these nuances do matter. It's good to have stated them.
-TIA
I attended a local party with Michael Harrington at the founding of DSA in the late 70s, but haven’t heard a word of their existence since then. It’s nice to know they’re still around, but a new vision of what “socialism” is needs to be developed inasmuch as the entire theory of economics is an occult pseudo-science.
Socialism is the emerging new buzz world at cocktail parties. It is no longer the skunk at a lawn party.
Current times are forcing a new public conversation about true alternatives to "driving off the cliff capitalism". Up until now, no public alternatives (TINA) have been allowed in the public square. It reminds me of the very old signs saying "No Irish Need Apply".
I think it is now time that every liberal becomes a socialist and all third parties merge into one socialist party. We really do need a bolder contrast of thinking in the U.S. rather than the muddied thinking of the Democratic Party and even the Green Party.
I am really beginning to think real hard about this.
I think we need to stop framing political realities in terms of "ideas" and "dialogue." Isms have become pretty much irrelevant and the loose and ignorant use of language in the realm of political economy makes speaking about anything pretty difficult if it's not in a concrete situation of creating and exercising power to achieve a more fair distribution of wealth and more just distribution of power.
Fabian and other debating societies have pretty much become useless, though they are fun sometimes, especially when food and drink are involved. But so is Thanksgiving dinner.
Nader has been marginalized, not because of socialistic ideas (though he may have some), but because he analyzed power relationships in US government and society and catalyzed people to fight and win change, some of it quite substantive if you look at it compared to what others do. He calls it civic activism. I may call it something else.
The long and short of it is we don't need to flap our lips about isms and "change," -- hell, even Sarah Palin presented herself as an agent of change -- we need to analyze, organize and act as individuals and collectively.
ps: rosemarie jankowski -- I agree that Sanders has pretty much turned his back on his origins and caved in at some key political moments and now we are left to support him as the lesser of evils, if at all. So it goes, says the late, great KV
There is absolutely no possibility that the United States will ever become a Socialist state. Absolutely none at all. We might adopt some more socialist programs like Medicare and Social Security, but we will remain a capitalist country, not like it is now, but a true regulated capitalist country. Without regulation you cannot have capitalism.
I would also say that most liberals could not become socialists.
I also doubt there are that many people that support war.
I agree Thomas, because liberals like to SAY they support things (generalities about economic justice, (economic) democracy (the only kind), environmental protection (which has more economic and social implications than people realize), worker rights, etc) that many socialists do. Some because they really do believe in those ideas, others because it sounds better than the effects of the policies they really do back and some are just being dishonest. Socialists take those words seriosly and are willing to enact policies that would make those words a reality. They know what it takes, they know the sacrifice needed and the fundamental changes that would result. Liberals would become socialists if they didn't just say these phrases and mouth these words but tried to make them come true. What does economic justice mean and what changes would have to occur to make that a reality? A liberal will back away from making that a reality when they know what changes are needed, they seem to back policies that make bad ideas and instutions less harmful to enough that the radical changes don't come about.
Wilber1
Gee...we can't be that bad! I'm a liberal and I think I've been a little more effective over the years than you suggest. And I'm a centrist liberal (everyone needs at least one around )so I wouldn't favor radical change in any case. I think I'm fairly passionate about things that I really believe matter.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Thomas Moore wrote:
I wouldn't favor radical change in any case.
COMMENT:
Single payer universal health care such as Medicare for everyone would very definitely be a radical change. The US closing its seven hundred and something military bases around the world and using the US military only to actually defend US territory from attack would be radical. Drastically reducing the war industry budget would be a radical change. Instituting a true progressive income tax with no exceptions would be a radical change.
You sure you "wouldn't favor radical change in any case"?
I don't consider any of those "radical change" I'd say. (except one)
Single payer is the natural evoloution to national health care. Socialized health care will never be accepted here, the hybrid system we have now, tinkered with, is still the same system, that leaves single payer as the only solution.
Closing some bases is inevitible and we simply have to convince the countries where we close them that we must. No matter how bad they want us to stay, we must convince them we have to close their base.
Now a true progressive income tax would be radical...........so you got me. My bad, never say never! Yes I would favor radical change in this instance, so I withdraw my rash statement above.
Thomas More:Hello. Remember Phil Ochs song, "Love Me, I'm a Liberal"? You're a centrist liberal? Please expand or give a couple of examples of "fairly passionate about things that I really believe matter". I know the food bank and food. What else? I am curious. I never heard anyone say he/she is a centrist/liberal. (I've not been on political blogs long.)
NYCartist
Well, I'm very, very passionate about the American worker and his betrayal from all sides. He has been betrayed by his unions, his government, his employers, the left that bought into the business song and dance about illegal aliens. Look at what Bush passed on the H1A program this week when no one was looking. Might as well take your tools and go home if you are an American farm worker.
I am very, very, very passionate about the disaster that is our educational system and the failure to correct it. Its not hard to know what to do, but the entrenched educational industry is hard to move. Poor kids have a hard enough shot, but for example, black kids that went to school with me had obstacles to overcome, but they had a far better education to work with then. These kids now are being cheated.
I'm very passionate about those that serve. I detest people that disrespect them and don't give them the thanks they deserve. If they blame the serving soldiers for their governments mistakes, I detest it.
I love our country and am passionately offended when she is attacked with lies and half truths. Very wearing.
There are a few others, but you get the drift. (I care deeply that this government be sucessful, we need to move fast)
By centrist liberal I simply mean I'm left of center, liberal socially and more towards the center economically....not a socialist, communist or anti-American leftist. I don't believe in extremism or most radicalism. But there are a few ideas from all except the anti Americans that I find useful, good ideas or policies. I don't care where it comes from if it works and its the best idea.
I'm not with you completely on everything, but close. But what you've said here is very strong indeed. Well said and a very solid perspective.
Very kind thoughts, thank you.
What's that you say? A liberal will back away from changes when they know what changes could make economic justice a reality?
I find your assumption about what a liberal is and might do as presumptuous as that of the right-wingers who call liberal the "L Word."
First definition in Random House College for the word liberal is 1. favorable to progress or reform. Reform and progress imply change.
The same with American Heritage Dictionary which describes a liberal as one who follows views that favor reforms and progress. M. Webster III has thirteen column inches of fine print defining liberal and comparing the word to progressive, radical, and more.
Socialists and semi-socialists who might want at the same time to preserve small family-sized business where the boss works side by side with his/her employees are still liberals.
A liberal will back away from change when he/she learns what changes are needed? Eugene Debs didn't back away, does that mean he wasn't a real liberal? I do believe you have a serious misunderstanding of what the word liberal means in dictionaries and to liberals.
Looked at objectively, America is socialist but social only for a select few, the rich. Now, socialism for the rich is not a slogan, its the American reality.
Laws are passed that predominately benefit the rich. Influence and government policy is exercised that is predominately supportive of the rich. Heredity and surname qualifies individuals to become Presidents, Senators, Congressman, Directors and Executives of companies.
There are instances of merit that produce wealthy individuals in America and that is good. But its occurrence is rare.
phasor
"There are instances of merit that produce wealthy individuals in America and that is good. But its occurrence is rare."
Its not as rare as you'd think, unless by wealthy you mean Bill Gates wealthy.
Actually at the present time you have a valid argument. And untill capitalism is restored and untill the elites you refer to are put back in their proper place, you may be right.
I love America and Americans but these people are not Americans for the most part. They betray their country and its citizens for money. They would destroy America for the Global Corporate world without borders they are trying to establish.
I would argue that the US of A became a socialist state the day the Federal Gov't doled out the first farm and factory subsidies... bailed out the private banks in the first Wall street crash... created the Federal Reserve (which is no more federal than federal express)... bailed out Wall street in the second crash... subsidized the auto industry mandating them to build tanks & guns for WWII... and all the pork belly MIC back room sweet heart no bid hand shake and a wink deals that have come since... Corporate Socialism is also known as Corporatism, aka Fascism... We used the communists to fight the fascists in WWII, and we used the fascists to fight the communists during the cold war... I think capitalism is a great idea, I think we should try it some time...
the Brotherhood of Man is not found in the thesis of Communism nor in the antithesis of Capitalism, but in a higher thesis... MLK JR
I meant to say a Higher Synthesis...
Actually, you can have unregulated capitalism. That's why the investment banks failed. We've got unregulated capitalism now, and it's wreaking havoc.
I also disagree with your statment doubting that people support wars. In fact, many Democratic liberals have never uttered a peep as war after war has been waged by the United States. Usually, they cling to a thin excuse that helps them with the rationalization. However, probably your average Democrat thinks that a war on terrorism makes sense, when it's utterly meaningless.
If you asked a liberal Dem directly, they'd probably sound like pacifists. But then if you ask them if they support the policies of their Democratic candidates (who favor more wars), then they'll likely fall in line like good Germans. (No offence meant to present-day Germany.)
-TIA
Thoughts_Into_Action wrote:
...many Democratic liberals have never uttered a peep as war after war has been waged by the United States.
COMMENT:
I absolutely agree with your observation about Democrats supporting wars, assuming you mean the majority. I only take issue with the term "Democratic liberals."
I can find no dictionary definition of "liberal" that suggests a "liberal" could possibly support any war that wasn't purely to defend the country and intended to save lives.
All the various wars and military actions the US has engaged in during the past 63 years have been nothing more than murder for profit, and that does not match any definition of liberal.
Therefore, while a majority of Democrats have supported or at least failed to protest the murderous wars the US has engaged in for power and profit, none of these can be called "liberal."
As for "Democratic candidates (who favor more wars)", who voted to give GWB war power? All the Damnedcrats but the heroic Barbara Lee of Oakland CA who, at the time was the only real liberal in Congress.
Washington State's US Congressman, "so-called liberal" Jim McDermott, claimed he had to vote for more money for war to "support the troops" while blatantly ignoring that the best way to support them was to bring them home.
Your name, Thoughts_Into_Action, is a perfect name for a liberal, a true liberal. Unfortunately there aren't anywhere near enough that do put thoughts into action. One liberal in Congress wasn't enough and a million or more died or were maimed because of it.
"Actually, you can have unregulated capitalism. That's why the investment banks failed. We've got unregulated capitalism now, and it's wreaking havoc."
Absolute truth. A capsule definition of where we are.
Let the People decide in a decentralized, direct online democratic way.
I think most people are socialists and don't know it. I was like that for a while. "Socialist" has been perverted into a slur for so long by the corporate media. The tide's turning. I can feel it. I disagree with Thomas More there. It's been shown that a majority of Americans favor socialist reform.
Socialism is to capitalism what the mongoose is to the cobra.
If it's a mix, it's 9 parts capitalism, and 1 part socialism.
"Many socialists are pleased that Barack Obama has been elected president."
Sounds like something Sarah Palin would say.
I don't see why "socialists" would be happy about Obama's election, because he does not support "socialism", unless you count that time he shared his lunch in kindergarten.
"Many socialists are pleased that Barack Obama has been elected president."
"Sounds like something Sarah Palin would say.
I don't see why "socialists" would be happy about Obama's election, because he does not support "socialism", unless you count that time he shared his lunch in kindergarten."
I think they're just glad that McCain didn't get in.
Honest Rog....It seems to me that both socialism and capitalism are failed ideologies. Socialism seemed to fail because incentives seem to be necessary and there is no incentive as great as self interest.....the evidence of the small plot productivity versus the poor productivity of the collective farm and so on. The massive bailouts at the present time explode Ayn Rand's notions of market capitalism but does not capitalism call for constant growth and how can this be sustained with finite resources? So are we not in need of another set of philosophies that regulate rampant greed yet offer incentives....perhaps the social democratic ideas might serve here.
The answer to your question at the end is no, we don't need a new philosophy.
We actually have to try socialism first. There hasn't been a purely socialist country, except for anarchist Spain, briefly, before the Spanish Republic was crushed by a combination of military forces from Franco, Nazi Germany and Stalin.
Even the United States doesn't have pure capitalism, although it has been devolving back to that state. Something like pure capitalism existed here in the 19th century, with its 14-hour days, child labor and other horrors.
As I say, though, the United States is devolving ....
-TIA
Lets not confuse Communism (USSR, China, etc) with Socialism, which is a Theory with juxtaposing interpretations (National Socialism vs. Democratic Socialism)...
Rog,
While your comparisons regarding the outcomes of Capitalism and Russian-soviet-style socialism are correct There is some confusion as to the causes. The small plots were more productive because the worker had control in it's management, while the collective fields were run by a distant administrator or boss.
Similarly, Capitalism, concentrates ownership and management in the hands of the a distant, unaccountable owning and coordinating classes, and gives the worker no say in the enterprise. If the workers have a say in the conditions and benefits of their work and the genuine share of the outcome of the enterprise, then things are completely different. (Like the Argentine cooperatives - or the Mondragon colectives of Spain). Capitalism doesn't give the worker this. The worker must compete compete and undercut their co-workers in selling their labor for a fraction of the actual value added to the good or service. This surplus value of labor is where profit comes from.
I never understood this peculiarly USAn, notion of "self-interest" as being in opposition to solidarity or other collective interests. It seems to come from an excessively individualistic notion of humanity. My pursuit of "self-interest" is largely in the broader fortunes of my the organization where I am employed, commmunity, nation, humanity, and the earth's physical-ecological systems themselves. So, supporting the collective is supporting my self-interest.
---USAn---
I think a defining moment for a socialist cultural resurgence -- if not a political one -- was when George Bush had to come on the television and defend "democratic capitalism" (sic) as the best system the world has ever devised. There is, however, bound to be a lot of confusion about what socialism means -- because it's been used to describe so many systems and theories, but also because of deliberate obfuscation. The idea that the near nationalization of the banking industry, or that government bailouts to Wall Street is "socialism" is utter nonsense. Socialism is about meeting fundamental human needs socially -- housing, healthcare, education, food, water; only in this way can each human being really flourish. Only in this way can competition be meaningful. Only in this way can any true approximation of the idealist's dream of democracy be realizable.
One other point: socialist who are happy that Barack Obama has been elected president need to recognize that, while yes, electing a black man to the presidency is a progressive victory, we cannot expect the victory to extend an inch past that. Obama is fiercely committed to the capitalist system. Just as FDR saved capitalism from itself, giving life-saving support through massive public projects on the one hand while engaging in lethal, widespread union busting on the other, Obama will serve his corporate masters. Many of whom, are his friends, many of whom served in the Clinton Administration (which was supported by the DSA).
One obvious break in the Obama/FDR comparison, is that the New Deal held things in place until the war came along and got everything booming (bad pun intended). The war's already booming this time around. With another terrorist attack on US soil, however, Obama could end up making Bush look like a dove.
When we look at how Capitalism and "free market" economics have wrecked the US and UK, isn't it time for the majority of people to start thinking about alternatives? If what I believe in the news is correct, then the US is suffering 1 million job losses a month at the moment. What is the effect on morale at the moment? Here in the UK we are also suffering, I have been out of work for four months, having worked for 33 years. Our economies are based on the "service" sector and selling weapons to other countries. Unlike the US, we have no motor industry, and large well established businesses are failing every week. The property market is collapsing, because it is built on inflated prices, a result of the sub prime, reckless lending culture. The banks have been bailed out by the government - why? In a true Capitalist economy, they should be left to fail like any other business.
There should in my opinion be:
One nationalised bank, with fixed lending and saving rates, and government controlled salary scales.
All of the utilities should be state controlled.
Free health care for all.
This is what modern Socialism should aspire to.
As others here have noted, the word "socialist" has been so thoroughly trashed by American conservatives that it has become a permanent stigma in politics. That is why, in my view, the Democatic Party remains the only viable foundation for social reform, simply because it is capable of gaining power.
Some posters here wondered about the relationship between socialism and capitalism. Here's a global scan. In western Europe and Scandinavia social democrats have governed off and on since the end of WWII, and still rule in Spain and Great Britain (Britain's Labor Party is traditionally one of them). and in every case, industry has remained overwhelmingly in private hands: 97% in Sweden even at the height of its socialist-driven economic revolution. Social democracy, obviously, is the opposite of communism.
What distinguishes the social democrats is their ongoing committment to social programs: single-payer health care for all, 4-6 months "paid" family leave, and other vital systems that represent authentic family values. Recently, the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers Party drew up a Dependence Law to subsidize people who must care for invalid family members; it is also struggling to get reluctant conservatives to cooperate in teaching good citizenship and tolerance in the schools. (Oh, the Spanish socialists vigorously opposed the invasion of Iraq while their British cousins were cheerleaders, which shows that political policies among social democrats are not always unified.)
Summing up, I see models of humanity in social democracy that I believe could be - should be - wedged into the Democratic Party. I'm sure the American Socialist Party does not agree.